User talk:Pluto2
Kid, why are you reverting my edits? :Because you're a troll? --Pluto2 (talk) 03:55, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ::: ::::Nice meme from 2007, troll. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:59, October 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::: :::::::I'm actually bi, try again. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::::But I'm literally a hermaprodite. So what gender am I gay TOWARDS? Also, I'm 15. You were close, but not close enough.--Pluto2 (talk) 04:07, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::::If thats so, you must have enjoyed meatspin. The person on top has breasts, perfect for you people with both the organs. :::::::::: Then get a ressasignment surgery. :::::::::::I don't want reassignment surgery! --Pluto2 (talk) 04:11, October 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::::::: Give up kid, look at , see all these accounts? They're mine. If you blcok me, I come back. i'm unstoppable. ::::::::::::::: Get a life, man. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:27, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::::::::: Actually, that's a list of "all" blocked accounts, and not all of them are the troll.Ryoung122 (talk) 01:57, October 18, 2015 (UTC) To the troll: you really think you're accomplishing something here? Wikia is the MINOR LEAGUES. Ryoung122 (talk) 01:56, October 18, 2015 (UTC) Pluto2, Thanks for joining the Gerontology Wiki. Ryoung122 (talk) 02:17, October 18, 2015 (UTC) Blocked for one week I didn't block you for misbehavior but because your voluminous, yet immature editing style is hurting the direction of the Gerontology Wiki. Your shameless bias for promoting longevity claims and myths as if they were true is 100% counter to the mission of the Gerontology Wiki: evidence-based longevity research. Perhaps, in time, you will come to understand the difference between true and false, myth and reality. But for the moment, you do not yet seem to grasp these concepts. In addition, you writing style borders on arrogant...WHO decided that a list of unvalidated Chinese claims should be called "supercentenarians"? WHY HAVE A CUTOFF AT 122? WHAT'S THE POINT? IT IS TRUE UNTIL IT'S NOT TRUE? WHAT IF AN UNVALIDATED CLAIMANT WERE 121 NOW BUT 123 IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW? If you are going to take the time to add unvalidated claims, you can take the time to properly category them as such.Ryoung122 (talk) 00:30, October 30, 2015 (UTC) :I meant to move it to "Chinese supercentenarian claims"...I was just about to do so before you blocked me! And note the article says "unless the person was previously known prior to 122", such as if Fu Suqing's claimed age is correct, and she does reach 123, we'll still list her. Apologies for my attitude, I was actually in fact about to move it...--Pluto2 (talk) 00:36, October 30, 2015 (UTC) :Can I be unblocked? You were rather hasty...I was in fact about to move it to "List of Chinese supercentenarian claims" when you blocked me. --Pluto2 (talk) 00:38, October 30, 2015 (UTC) I'll shorten your block if you agree to abide by the following rules: 1. Unvalidated claims to 110-114 should be categorized as "unverified supercentenarians". 2. Unvalidated claims to 115-130 should be categorized as "longevity claims". 3. Unvalidated claims to 130+ should be categorized as "longevity myths". 4. The Gerontology Wiki is, even though a place where kids are welcome, and even a place for kids, it's also a place for LEARNING. And part of that learning is learning to be realistic. When you compare validated to unvalidated data, there's a huge difference. Right now, the second-oldest person in the UK is 111. The UK has over 60 million people. And yet yo seem to believe that, somehow, someway, people really do live longer when records of birth don't exist. Well, they don't. They only appear to live longer because their ages are inflated.Ryoung122 (talk) 00:45, October 30, 2015 (UTC) :I agree. I never disagreed with that guideline. I only lent credence to China because it has the largest population of any country, and probably has a lot, and I do mean a lot, of SCs. I will abide by your rules. --Pluto2 (talk) 00:51, October 30, 2015 (UTC) Where did you get THIS from? Where's the source for this claim?Ryoung122 (talk) 00:48, October 30, 2015 (UTC) :What claim? There's no link... --Pluto2 (talk) 00:52, October 30, 2015 (UTC) ::Oh, James Henry Brett, Jr.? I thought it was discovered it was a double-life mistake...My bad. Could you unblock me? --Pluto2 (talk) 01:16, October 30, 2015 (UTC) How little is 1-2%? Greetings, Statistical analysis have shown that 98-99% of claims to age 115+ are false. I'm not sure you get what that means. So, how about a little lesson: imagine if you were blocked for 98 of the next 100 days...and weren't told which 2 days you could edit. Would that begin to get the message in?Ryoung122 (talk) 03:32, October 30, 2015 (UTC) :I'm sorry! I am simply attempting to list the claims as they are. When no contradictory birthdate has been provided, we are forced to go with their claimed birthdate when listing them when it comes to claims. I apologize. You've made your point. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:36, October 30, 2015 (UTC) Greetings Because you have shown a willingness to learn, I am reducing your block from 7 days to 3 days. You are a very young individual and have shown signs of great talent. You work hard to find the answers to questions...and that's good. It becomes a problem, however, when you begin to make up false answers. I know about this. I was 15 once. Many teen stats-types have to make up data when the answers to questions aren't found. You can continue on the 110 Club for these next few days. When you return to the Gerontology Wiki, remember that you can contribute to the furtherance of human knowledge, or mislead the reader by disproportionately favoring those whose claims are unverified. Believe me, everyone would like to see some of these cases turn out to be true...but find documents, don't just be an advocate for longevity mythology. Ryoung122 (talk) 06:47, October 30, 2015 (UTC) Referencing information Hi Pluto2, I've noticed the recent edits that you have made to the article on Carrie C. White. Whilst expanding articles and adding more information is helpful, it is important for you to cite references in the article, simply by adding a "References" section at the bottom of the page, and linking any references that you have used when adding information to the article. Otherwise, people reading the article cannot know for sure which parts of information are reliable and trusted, and which parts are original research, which does not belong in a biographical article. Kind regards Jim1997 (talk) 18:10, November 2, 2015 (UTC) Disputed claims Why do you keep on saying that disputed claims are true, when they might not be? Carrie White, for example. That census you found for 'Carrie Joyner' is likely not hers. So don't go around saying that she definitely was 117. You need PROOF. And more than just 1 alleged census match. And, these Chinese cases you think are true. What about the many, many others out there who claim 110, 111 etc. Why haven't you listed them? And you still haven't answered my question of why you believe the ones you've listed and not any others. Disputed claims are disputed for a reason. They have records to suggest a younger age than the one they claimed. Richard Monkey (talk) 06:59, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :I'm actually still expanding the Chinese claims table...little by little.....I'm going to add them shortly. And White, I plan on removing. Feel free to pull her out of there, but leave her on the "oldest living people" list, as she doesn't deny anyone the title of OLP, she just shortens Calment's reign by about 3 years. Since there's reason to believe her claim is true, we can keep her there. Feel free to remove her elsewhere though. :) --Pluto2 (talk) 07:03, November 3, 2015 (UTC) What reason is there to keep Carrie White in? Richard Monkey (talk) 17:11, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :According to Robert, she's not debunked. The 1900 Census match is not unequivocal, and it's outside the twenty-year window. Thus, she remains on paper 116 or 117, but disputed and "possibly" 102. --Pluto2 (talk) 18:19, November 3, 2015 (UTC) You're doing it again! Kamato Hongo is disputed. She claimed to have been born in 1887. She was more likely to have been 110. What's so hard to understand about that? I am getting quite annoyed that the you keep on going about how this person was definitely born in this year, when you haven't got the proof! Where's your proof that Hongo was definitely born in 1889? Richard Monkey (talk) 19:57, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :She is most certainly not 110...that would mean her mother would have been around 49...highly implausible. 1889-1891 is the most likely birth year for her, according to Robert. Michael Poulain is a very extreme skeptic who went with the youngest possible year. --Pluto2 (talk) 19:59, November 4, 2015 (UTC) Why did you go with 1889, rather than 1890 or 1891? Richard Monkey (talk) 20:01, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :It's the most plausible birth year. Her mother would have been around 45 then...closer to a reasonable age than 46 or 47. --Pluto2 (talk) 20:05, November 4, 2015 (UTC) NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE Pluto2, I'm blocking your article editing privileges for TWO WEEKS this time. You claimed that you would return to the Gerontology Wiki respecting the mission, but you quickly fell off the bandwagon with contentious, pro-longevity myth, anti-science POV editing. What part of evidence-based, encyclopedic facts, NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? I'll give you this: you are very active and persistent and have a lot of self-belief. I remember when I was young, I thought teenagers should be allowed to drive a car. I even thought I could drive when I was 2. But guess what? The very young are too self-aware and not conscious enough of those around them. I wouldn't bother sending you messages like this if I didn't feel you have great potential. But it needs to be harnessed in the right direction. This is not the place for you to make up your own fantasy lists. Start your own Wiki if you must do that. This is a "collaborative encyclopedia," not a fan website.Ryoung122 (talk) 04:31, November 5, 2015 (UTC) :I apologize, I did not say that the claims were true, I was simply speaking in the tense that "according to the Chinese government", not "the GRG's position". Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:38, November 5, 2015 (UTC) ::Greetings, there's room here for articles on people from all countries. There's room here for lists of longevity claims and longevity myths. All I am asking you to do is to properly follow outside, reliable sources in your categorization schemes and not invent/make up/mix data categories: we have "validated" (by GRG, GWR, or IDL...that's IT), pending (by GRG), unvalidated 110-114 (giving people the benefit of the doubt for this category, which has been shown to be about 65% age-misreported), longevity claims 115-130, and longevity myths (131+). That's it. :Yes, you are intelligent, but you also do not seem to understand a few things. You are still a child. You have only taken 15 journeys around the sun. When I was your age, I thought I was so smart as well. I had book learning. What I didn't have was experience...learning that comes over time. Please take these two weeks to consider: is my work HELPING the WORLD COMMUNITY EFFORT TO FIND OUT HOW LONG HUMANS LIVE, BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE PROCESSED WITH SCIENTIFIC METHODS, OR AM I JUST MAKING UP A KIDS LIST OF CASES I'M FASCINATED BY AND WISH WERE TRUE? If it's the latter, please make your own Wikia, and have fun.Ryoung122 (talk) 18:08, November 5, 2015 (UTC) ::I apologize for my actions. What is IDL? And I am willing to do the former. I plan on, once my block ends, editing past SCs (Elisabetta de Fine, etc.) and adding photos for them. However, I ask you to consider ending my block. --Pluto2 (talk) 20:53, November 9, 2015 (UTC) ::IDL=International Database on Longevity.Ryoung122 (talk) 02:30, November 10, 2015 (UTC) Pluto2 Please don't be offended by the psychopathic troll who posted unconscionable comments on your talk page. JumpingJack2002 has been banned forever.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:35, November 10, 2015 (UTC) :It's all right. Also, could you unblock me? :) --Pluto2 (talk) 21:23, November 13, 2015 (UTC) :::Pluto2, just ignore this troll. All he wants is attention. --Jim1997 (talk) 15:52, November 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::Is that oldjerry? Also, make sure to revert the Du Pinhua edit he made...or at least clean up the grammar.... --Pluto2 (talk) 15:53, November 14, 2015 (UTC) :::::It's best not to speculate on who is might be. But the person is a troll, and has been blocked for that reason. --Jim1997 (talk) 15:55, November 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Oh well. Can you revert the edit they made to Du Pinhua? --Pluto2 (talk) 15:57, November 14, 2015 (UTC) :::::::The Du Pinhua page seems fine as it is. When writing encyclopedic articles, it's best not to refer to forums such as The 110 Club, or to express a biased opinon such as "this claim is the most plausible". If any edits are made to completely vandalise the page, they will be reverted. --Jim1997 (talk) 16:03, November 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::cCn you at least clean up the grammar and finish her claimed age? It's just left as 120 years 233 and no "days" at the end. --Pluto2 (talk) 16:18, November 14, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::Sure thing. --Jim1997 (talk) 16:20, November 14, 2015 (UTC) Hey あなたはここで再び編集を許可してはいけません！ あなたの貢献は絶対ある牛糞！ あなたはこんち吸います！ 、事実であるとフィクションが何であるかと中国と暴か例であなたの妄想を止める何を学ぶしてください！ : よろしくおねがいします, --- 三郎笹井 (talk) 13:23, November 18, 2015 (UTC) :I know what you said... "You must not be allowed to edit here again! Your contribution is absolute cow dung! You suck 'elo! , Please learn what to stop your delusion in the example is debunked with China and what is fiction to be a fact! Thank you" Please do not make disparaging comments to me. --Pluto2 (talk) 19:41, November 18, 2015 (UTC) Here you go again! You're doing it again! Why do you keep saying disputed cases are definitely true when you have no evidence to prove that! Muhammad Al-Mukri (sp.?) was not 112 for certain, yet you seem to think he was. Where are your sources for all the information you've put into articles? The 'Kamato Hongo being born on 8 April' or 'Shigechiyo Izumi was originally born 29 August', for example. You need to provide sources, or other users will get sceptical and start removing the info. Now all I am asking is that you provide your source to ALL the information that you've entered into articles of longevity claimants. Richard Monkey (talk) 08:00, November 20, 2015 (UTC) Pluto is gets 20.8.1865 birthday is from the Wikipedia Japan page of Shigechiyo Izumi. I m not of thinikmg that pluto mature, there no point of talks on her/him. Regards, --- 三郎笹井 (talk) 11:27, November 21, 2015 (UTC) BLOCKED ONE MONTH FOR PROMOTING LONGEVITY CLAIMS, DEBUNKED CASES, AND MYTHS AS IF THEY WERE TRUE Pluto2, your last block of 2 weeks should have been sufficient for you to have "learned your lesson". Sadly, you haven't. You think too highly of your own ill-formed personal opinions. I already told you: the Gerontology Wiki is to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A FANSITE! If you wish to make your own Wikia, fine. But I'm not going to allow you to alter the mission or content of this Wikia. Virtually every new edit you made in the last two days was to promote unvalidated, false, debunked, or questionable claims "as if they were true". We already have enough trouble out there battling the Gerontology Wiki vandal. We don't need more issues. Your contributions are NOT in accord with the mission or direction of this Wiki, and your continued defiance is now earning you a one-month block. Because I do believe that, maybe one day, you could grow and mature enough to understand "I was wrong," I'm just blocking you for one month, instead of more. Let's see if you return with a new editing mindset in December.Ryoung122 (talk) 00:20, November 22, 2015 (UTC) Apology Greetings, Pluto2, I, Robert Douglas Young, offer my apology to the fact that I was harsh on you. We just recieved a copy of the Koseki record of Shigechiyo Izumi from our Japanese GRG correspondents, which completely matches 1865 for Izumi. Turns out you were right, we were wrong. You are a genius and I believe if you keep this up, you can become the next Dr. Coles. Thanks, Roberta Douglas Young :Nice try, troll. --Pluto2 (talk) 20:32, December 2, 2015 (UTC)